Ezra Klein: Specifics In '08!

« They Were Only Freshmen | Main | National Service »

May 22, 2007

Specifics In '08!

Mark Schmitt thinks candidates are wise to stay vague about policy details, while Ezra wants more specifics. With Ezra out of the office, it's time to crank his music, pretend I'm four years younger, and defend the values of the wonk community!

Ezra is approaching this from the viewpoint of an activist and primary voter trying to figure out which candidate to support, while Mark is trying to help candidates avoid the kind of trouble that a detailed health care plan caused for Bradley in his primary against Gore. From the activist's perspective, you want to know what candidates expect that they'll be willing to push for once elected. This is Jon Cohn's commonsense point:

Obama is so inexperienced I have very little sense where he'll come down on the key questions I set out in my essay. And while Clinton has a very clear track record--thanks to her role in the Clinton health care plan of 1993-94--it's not clear whether she'd go in a similar direction, or show similar ambition, if given the chance all over again. In a nutshell, I want to hear some details because I care a lot about health care and want to vote for a candidate whose views on the matter make the most sense to me. How are voters supposed to make informed choices if the candidates remain vague on the issue until after the election, as Mark advises?

It's a particularly important question given the Senate calendar. During the next presidential term, Democrats are probably going to have a substantial Senate majority -- 21 Republicans and 12 Democrats are up for election in '08, with a 19R-15D split in 2010. Our advantage expires in 2012, when it's 24 Democrats and 9 Republicans. What activists want here is some demonstration of a candidate's interest in using a large but temporary majority to push the most progressive plan possible. We want boldness, and Edwards' plan suggests that he'd govern boldly. Mark says that any candidate's dreams will be tempered by the political realities of Congress in 2009, but what a candidate dreams of doing is especially relevant in this election, because we've got a Senate calendar to make dreams come true.

I'm suspicious of Mark's view that candidates should just "put forward a few basic principles and some benchmarks for reform," because anything I can imagine on that score either seems vague enough that I wouldn't know how bold the candidate was interested in being, or too detailed for Mark. I like his "identify some models you like" line more, though identifying too broad a range of models can leave me a little confused about what the candidate's goals actually are.

All this is to say that Ezra and Jon are right about how activists should see things. Whether or not it's strategically wise for a candidate to come out with a detailed plan, we should support candidates who come out with good, specific policy proposals.

But how about things from the candidate's position? Is it smart strategy to come out with specifics? While the primaries are young, I haven't seen Edwards' health care plan face anything like the kind of sniping that came at Bradley. Instead, the plan has helped to establish Edwards both as a candidate with solid, well-thought-out proposals, and as the most progressive of our three major options. Maybe the political landscape has shifted over the last eight years, maybe the Edwards plan is just better, or maybe it's something specific to the candidates and their situations. But so far, it looks like coming out with a good and specific plan has only been to his advantage.

May 22, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

"Mark says that any candidate's dreams will be tempered by the political realities of Congress in 2009, but what a candidate dreams of doing is especially relevant in this election, because we've got a Senate calendar to make dreams come true."

Yup.

Saying you can't/won't get something done in the '09-'10 Congress means you're saying you'll never get it done.

The stars are never going to be better aligned.

And Hillary (explicitly) and Obama (implicitly) are both saying they won't get health care done in the '09-'10 Congress.

-----

I'd actually agree with Mark to this extent:

If you aren't planning on passing a health care plan in the '09-'10 Congress, you have little electoral reason to offer a detailed plan.

The only good reason for putting out a detailed plan is if you actually intend to expend political capital on getting it enacted into law.

This is why Edwards is offering a detailed plan while Clinton and Obama are not.

Posted by: Petey | May 22, 2007 7:01:13 PM

Petey, we're largely in agreement, but I'd add that the '11-'12 Congress doesn't sound that bad to me either, because of the 19R-15D split in 2010.

Of course, it's possible that we can convince some among those 19 to break ranks. I imagine that they don't want a popular president campaigning in their states and telling people, "George Voinovich is the reason you don't have health insurance!"

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 22, 2007 7:13:15 PM

Also, I'll make a related point:

Mark badly misinterprets the '00 primary battle over Bradley's health care plan.

That battle wasn't truly about health care. It was a proxy battle about whether or not Bradley stood with the core constituency of the Democratic Party.

That exact same battle would have taken place on another policy front even if Bradley had never said a single word about health care, and it still would have had the exact same results - a loss of Bradley's base credibility.

Mark misses this in the precise way as one would expect a Bradley-ite to be utterly oblivious to Democratic coalition politics.

Posted by: Petey | May 22, 2007 7:18:28 PM

"I'd add that the '11-'12 Congress doesn't sound that bad to me either, because of the 19R-15D split in 2010."

- The President's party usually loses seats in off-year elections.
- Historically, major policy initiatives generally get enacted in a President's first Congress after the election, not second.

Posted by: Petey | May 22, 2007 7:20:53 PM

The only good reason for putting out a detailed plan is if you actually intend to expend political capital on getting it enacted into law.

This is why Edwards is offering a detailed plan while Clinton and Obama are not.

More transparent Petey spin. It's quite plain from Neil's discussion and from what Mark actually said that the chief reason not to have a detailed plan is a matter of winning the election, and in no way implies lack of intent to pass a plan in '09.

Neil, I think one reason Edwards' plan hasn't been attacked is that it's so early. When the primaries are near, if Edwards appears to be a threat, his plan may well get some heat. It's a good plan, on the whole, but that doesn't always prevent effective attacks, fair or not.

Posted by: Sanpete | May 22, 2007 7:22:47 PM

(1) not in 2002.
(2) Bush passed Medicare Part D in the second Congress.

Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | May 22, 2007 7:24:02 PM

Re: Nich:

I know well enough that no election is really a "normal" election, but even given that caveat, 2002 is an aberration from your standard election, and really not the year to hold as a counter-example. (Incidentally, it doesn't even compare to 1942, where the incumbent party got a clobbering over - among other things - World War II.) The radical change in Congressional and Presidential approval ratings in response to 9/11 were unprecedented and unlikely to occur again for any foreseeable reason.

Posted by: Jon O. | May 22, 2007 7:39:15 PM

Jon O: Do you get to say the same thing about 1998? I think the dynamics have changed, and it's now more about Presidential approval. If a President is bringing the troops home, the ratings will be high, and the GOP will be sputtering.

Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | May 22, 2007 7:43:06 PM

What activists want here is some demonstration of a candidate's interest in using a large but temporary majority to push the most progressive plan possible.

Forcing Democrats today to define the fight in specific detail a year and a half before they could conceivably take office seems like a pretty good way to add a little extra oomph to "temporary." But other than that, what's not to like about the plan.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | May 22, 2007 7:44:49 PM

I don't get to say the same thing about 1998. Sure, the events of the day were unique as well, but we can't discount that after 9/11, GWB registered the highest Presidential approval rating in the admittedly less-than-comprehensive history thereof. It's totally about Presidential approval, seeing as we're in a time of particularly high partisanship and party unity. However, like any tracking poll, there are limiting factors and a general regression to the mean, so such a drastically high approval rating as one in the 90s is unlikely to happen again - not even for something like a new President taking the troops home. (Incidentally, I sincerely doubt the next President will ever see an approval rating above the low 70s - and low 70s would require our new President to be Jesus B. Washington. The '08 elections are going to be incredibly expensive, and consequently incredibly negative, and consequently making Edwards, for example, into the new Clinton among anybody within the right-hand side of the room.)

Posted by: Jon O. | May 22, 2007 10:07:15 PM

Yes, Neil analyzes the need for specifics... and lo and behold, John Edwards rings all his bells. :)

I think there's still questions about Edwards' plan, myself, but I think Schmitt is right that you can't really expect politicans to give policy wonks what they're really looking for - that's the nature of politics. The good politicians know how to say vague things that seem just specific enough without really committing to anything - and this is one place, I'd say, where Edwards can come off green and occasionally naive - not because he doesn't sound political, but because when he does sound very political, it's kind of obvious. Whereas Hillary Clinton has made a career out of offering next to no specifics, and Obama's "above it all" notions have everything to do with vaguely appealing bromides we can all agree with.

In any case, it's still early, and we can't really tell if Americans even understand enough about healthcare to understand what the choices are, let alone evaluate various proposals. And that, more than specifics, is what we should be worrying about.

Posted by: weboy | May 22, 2007 10:26:32 PM

Specifics? How about this: (I posted a diary on Mydd about it)

http://www.press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.d ll/article?AID=/20070522/NEWS01/70522003 /1079/NEWS01

"Presidential candidate and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. will come to Iowa City next week to announce his health care plan, his campaign confirmed today.

A stop at University Hospitals on May 29 is the candidate's second in Iowa City and ninth in Iowa since announcing his run for president. Obama drew a crowd of almost 10,000 to the University of Iowa Pentacrest on Earth Day.

"The speech comes on the heels of a lot of forums on health care from across the country," said Tommy Vietor, a campaign spokesman in Des Moines.

The time and specific place of the health care announcement have not been determined, Vietor said.

Vietor said Obama has been hosting health care forums, including one in Mason City on April 5, to get feedback from voters on what they would like to see in his plan.

"It is a chance for him to hear from Iowa on what is working and what is not," he said.

Sarah Swisher, state director of Iowa for Health Care, said it is no surprise Obama would choose Iowa City for this announcement.

"This is the health care capital of the state," she said.

Iowa for Health Care is a project of Service Employees International Union, a health care workers' union with a chapter in Iowa City. The project, with more than 20,000 members across the state and based in Iowa City, is pushing all the 2008 presidential candidates to announce health care plans by Aug. 1.

Iowa for Health Care worked to bring Obama to the area next week, Swisher said. Obama is the second candidate to announce a health care plan, following former U.S. Sen. John Edwards, she said.

The campaign started five years ago, before the 2004 presidential election, Swisher said. During presidential election cycles, the group works to make quality, affordable and accessible health care an issue in campaigns. In other years, Swisher said the group works with the state Legislature to pass health care initiatives, such as the cigarette tax.

"This isn't a campaign that disappears," she said. "It does when everyone has health care."

Starting Friday, Iowa for Healthcare will launch its 2008 presidential campaign work. On Friday, the organization's members will meet in Iowa City with Congressman Dave Loebsack, Iowa Rep. Ro Foege, D-Mount Vernon and Sen. Robert Dvorsky, D-Coralville, to talk about SCHIP funding. The Iowa Legislature recently expanded the program to offer health care coverage to 15,000 more low-income children and their parents, but needs matching federal funds.

On May 31, Iowa for Health Care will join Gov. Chet Culver on the steps of the Iowa Capitol in Des Moines to publicly announce their effort to push presidential candidates to make health care plans, Swisher said."

Posted by: vwcat | May 22, 2007 10:49:18 PM

One thing I must say. Ezra gets all hot and bothered by the fine details of policy stuff. I have insomnia. I think reading this kind of stuff is just great for a cure. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Posted by: vwcat | May 23, 2007 12:03:44 AM

"More transparent Petey spin. It's quite plain from Neil's discussion and from what Mark actually said that the chief reason not to have a detailed plan is a matter of winning the election"

I'm in agreement with you.

Mark is approaching things entirely from an electoral perspective, not from a legislative perspective.

If you don't care about enacting a health care plan, there's really no reason to provide a target by having one. The only reason for laying one out is to make things easier after the election.

Posted by: Petey | May 23, 2007 12:45:47 AM

"Ezra gets all hot and bothered by the fine details of policy stuff. I have insomnia. I think reading this kind of stuff is just great for a cure. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"

Well, if you don't care about policy, Obama is certainly a great candidate.

Posted by: Petey | May 23, 2007 12:47:12 AM

"Do you get to say the same thing about 1998? I think the dynamics have changed, and it's now more about Presidential approval. If a President is bringing the troops home, the ratings will be high, and the GOP will be sputtering."

'98 and '02 were certainly historical exceptions, though '06 provided a return to the mean.

I don't think it's guaranteed that the party of the President will lose seats in '10, but I do think there are powerful forces at play that make it more likely than not.

-----

"Bush passed Medicare Part D in the second Congress."

No doubt. And Bill Clinton passed welfare reform in his second Congress.

But I do think that historically, it's easier to pass big legislation when you have the momentum of an electoral mandate. And that momentum is most likely to be in a President's initial Congress.

Exceptions abound, of course. But I do think the '09-'10 Congress is a special moment of possibility for health care legislation.

Posted by: Petey | May 23, 2007 12:56:24 AM

If you don't care about enacting a health care plan, there's really no reason to provide a target by having one. The only reason for laying one out is to make things easier after the election.

More spin. I don't believe for a second that Edwards is doing this to make things easier after the election. He thinks it will help him get elected, which is the necessary predicate to passing anything in '09. He and his advisors just have a different strategy than Mark recommends.

Well, if you don't care about policy, Obama is certainly a great candidate.

Or if you think the best way to accomplish good policy is to have the most gifted articulator of ideas, someone with a broad vision and experience working out tough details with disparate interests, someone smart enough not to get hornswaggled about Iraq, and so on, he might be a great candidate for those reasons instead.

Posted by: Sanpete | May 23, 2007 1:45:08 AM

"he might be a great candidate for those reasons instead."

I would expect you to prefer Clinton or Obama, Sanpete. They both share your centrist ideology.

Posted by: Petey | May 23, 2007 2:14:23 AM

Is there any good evidence that Edwards' underlying political commitments, as opposed to his '08 election year positioning, are to the left of Obama's? This is a serious question, not an attempt to be snide.

Posted by: ikl | May 23, 2007 2:36:35 AM

I don't favor Clinton or Obama over Edwards, Petey, so I guess that must make Edwards a centrist too. I also don't favor your snide remarks about everyone but Edwards. They're transparent spin rather than substance. You aren't doing Edwards any favors here.

Is there any good evidence that Edwards' underlying political commitments, as opposed to his '08 election year positioning, are to the left of Obama's?

Not anything very conclusive.

Posted by: Sanpete | May 23, 2007 2:47:20 AM

I don't want tremendous detail, but 6-8 bullet points from each candidate outlining their universal health care plan (if they have one) would be nice.

That should suffice to indicate what a candidate's intent is - and if his/her stance is still blurry after providing those bullet points, we can assume the blurriness is intentional.

Posted by: low-tech cyclist | May 23, 2007 9:26:10 AM

"Mark Schmitt thinks candidates are wise to stay vague about policy details, while Ezra wants more specifics. With Ezra out of the office, it's time to crank his music, pretend I'm four years younger, and defend the values of the wonk community!"

Given that Commander Guy pledged in his campaign not to engage in nation-building, to pursue a "more humble" foreign policy, to regulate CO2 as a pollutant, and to be a uniter, not a divider, I'd differ. We know the GOP would promise anything to win, so why give them targets to aim at?

I think Democratic candidates should stay as vague as possible to give them the maximum flexibility pre- and post-election. Lots of Mom & Apple Pie guff. Let's leave the white papers and stuff until after we win the election.

Next question.

Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan | May 23, 2007 10:25:35 AM

"More transparent Petey spin ... More spin ... They're transparent spin"

Well, I think we've established that you think you can dismiss my arguments by calling them spin, Sanpete, even though I'm making them from my assessment of the American political situation in regards to passing legislation.

You must feel quite proud to be the last honest man, though Joe Lieberman will try to give you a run for your money there.

"I don't favor Clinton or Obama over Edwards"

Huh. Are you going with McCain or Giuliani then?

Posted by: Petey | May 23, 2007 11:27:34 AM

"That should suffice to indicate what a candidate's intent is - and if his/her stance is still blurry after providing those bullet points, we can assume the blurriness is intentional."

Again, the point here is not only to divine a candidate's intent. It is also to set up a situation where it becomes easier to pass legislation after the election is over.

Posted by: Petey | May 23, 2007 11:30:02 AM

"why give them targets to aim at?"

Because you want to do something with the office of the Presidency beyond just holding it.

If you run on nothing, you pass nothing.

Posted by: Petey | May 23, 2007 11:31:35 AM

Posted by: Sanpete | May 22, 2007 7:22:47 PM

More transparent Petey spin. It's quite plain from Neil's discussion and from what Mark actually said that the chief reason not to have a detailed plan is a matter of winning the election, and in no way implies lack of intent to pass a plan in '09.

The first part is correct, the second part is not.

Having a specific plan provides a target as well as a rallying point, and is a higher risk strategy to win election. And running with a specific plan substantially increases the chance of getting the plan passed.

If the plan helps recruit grass roots supporters and ease the task of building a national platform upon which to build after high profile early victories, and if the general election turns into a change election, certainly the benefits of rolling out the plan can offset the increased risks.

However, that trade-off probably looks more attractive to a challenger than to a front-runner, so it not really surprising that John Edwards already has his plan out there, Obama will be releasing a plan sometime over the summer, and Hillary's plan remains as talking points on index cards.

Posted by: BruceMcF | May 23, 2007 12:01:52 PM

"Having a specific plan provides a target as well as a rallying point, and is a higher risk strategy to win election. And running with a specific plan substantially increases the chance of getting the plan passed."

Exactamundo.

There is great power in going to Congress in 2009 with a plan that has been vetted by the electorate.

It immensely strengthens your negotiating position.

Posted by: Petey | May 23, 2007 12:19:08 PM

Finally, I'll note that one of the biggest roadblocks health care reform faced in '93 was precisely that Clinton hadn't run on a plan.

Opponents were able to cut up the plan that eventually emerged in no small part because Clinton didn't have the foundation strength of having a plan that had been vetted by the electorate.

The Bradley/Obama school of American politics that Mark subscribes to is terrified of getting wonkery involved in electoral politics. They always prefer "beyond politics" cliches and bipartisan panel derived solutions.

But if you actually run on specific policies and win those elections, you have power to begin to move the levers of government. Poll after poll show the American electorate is with Democrats on a wide variety of domestic legislation. Time to get the electorate involved in helping get some of that legislation passed.

Smart lefties shouldn't be scared of mixing policy with politics in the environment we face over the next couple of years.

Posted by: Petey | May 23, 2007 12:30:01 PM

Petey, your spin is based first on your assessment of what favors Edwards. I gave my reasons for rejecting your analysis. Not quoting them sort of makes them go away, though, so I understand your confusion.

I'll vote for the Democrat whoever she is, despite your spinning (which might indeed make some want to vote Republican), not because if it.

If you run on nothing, you pass nothing.

More transparent nonsense. Everyone will run on healthcare reform, and some package will be passed, regardless of how many details are given now. It's great that Edwards figures more details will help him get elected; maybe that will also help get his particular version passed. But that's a side effect, not the reason for giving the details. It would be really stupid to give details if you didn't think they could help you get elected first.

The Bradley/Obama school of American politics that Mark subscribes

More Petey spin. We have no idea at this point whether Obama will give details or not. It's May 2007, Petey, not January 2008.

Poll after poll show the American electorate is with Democrats on a wide variety of domestic legislation.

Yup, the electorate definitely favors Democratic policies at the level of detail given in poll questions.

Bruce, I don't think we disagree. I was simply pointing out that if you buy Mark's analysis, not giving a detailed plan doesn't imply lack of intent to pass a plan, which was Petey's spin on this.

Posted by: Sanpete | May 23, 2007 12:58:06 PM

"I'll vote for the Democrat whoever she is"

Ah. A sighting of the rare spotted Hillary supporter...

I still think she's too far left for you Sanpete. (And good lord, I don't get to say that about Hillary much.) Maybe Bloomberg is more your cup of tea?

Posted by: Petey | May 23, 2007 1:12:50 PM

Just a little joke, Petey. Don't get too excited. I'd be happy enough to vote for Clinton, but no more than for Edwards or Obama at this point. None of them make my heart sing.

If one supports the immigration bill in the end, I'll give them points for that.

Posted by: Sanpete | May 23, 2007 2:03:15 PM

Is there any good evidence that Edwards' underlying political commitments, as opposed to his '08 election year positioning, are to the left of Obama's?

Economic issues are where you really see it. Look at what Edwards did after he and Kerry lost in 2004 -- he went to UNC to start a center on poverty, and learn from a bunch of academics how to make better antipoverty policy. That's the sort of thing that suggests genuine interest in the issues. Here's the product of his efforts.

You can see it also in the high-level staff he and the other campaigns have. Hillary's top advisor is Mark Penn, CEO of a PR firm that helps employers shut down unions and gave Republicans 57% of their campaign contributions in the last cycle. Obama's top advisor is David Axelrod, who isn't a bad guy overall, but who isn't known for any particular issue positions and tries to set up campaigns that are based not on issues but on the candidates' biographies. Edwards' campaign manager (and probably his top advisor other than Elizabeth) is David Bonior, who was labor's best friend in the House for a long time. Bonoir is actually working for Edwards on a volunteer basis, and I don't imagine he'd be doing it for free if he didn't think Edwards was the best guy on the issues that matter most to him.

There's a bunch of other things to point to -- Edwards' surprisingly liberal record as a NC Senator, with his 100% NARAL rating and his vote against the Constitutional Amendment to ban flag burning, and the fact that he keeps talking about global poverty when there's no obvious political need to do so. In the end it's always possible to chalk everything up to political positioning, if you come to the issue with a deeply entrenched belief that that's all he's doing, but I don't think that's the justified thing to believe here.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 23, 2007 3:04:03 PM

he went to UNC to start a center on poverty, and learn from a bunch of academics how to make better antipoverty policy.

This is good, and a reason to support Edwards, but not over Obama, who has spent years doing stuff with similar ends, both as community organizer and state legislator.

Obama's top advisor is David Axelrod, who isn't a bad guy overall

Naturally, since he worked for Kerry-Edwards in '04. Bonoir is good, but this isn't very strong evidence.

Really, I don't think you pointed anything out that would give a firm basis to suppose Edwards is more left than Obama in his leanings, and nothing to overcome Obama's correct position on Iraq before the invasion, which ought to get major lefty points. One thing that bothers people about Obama is that he often talks like a triangulator, which suggests to some that he isn't left in his intentions. I reject that analysis, myself. Hopefully we'll get a better view of both candidates, and maybe even Clinton, as the campaign develops.

Posted by: Sanpete | May 23, 2007 4:05:03 PM

I meant to add that Bonoir signed on with Edwards well before Obama was more than a sparkle in the electorate's eye.

Posted by: Sanpete | May 23, 2007 4:07:05 PM

www.itsahookupsite.com It's NEW & It's FREE. hook up, video date, post ads, advertise & promote yourself or business for FREE @ www.itsahookupsite.com. tell all your freinds and spread the word.

LoveOnTheDownLow

Posted by: Donte Gold | May 23, 2007 4:32:12 PM

"One thing that bothers people about Obama is that he often talks like a triangulator, which suggests to some that he isn't left in his intentions."

I don't question Obama's lefty motives. I think they're pretty obviously sound.

I question Obama's ability to get a lefty agenda accomplished, compared to Edwards.

Or in other words, the triangulation makes me question his effectiveness, not his motives.

Posted by: Petey | May 23, 2007 5:03:00 PM

I'd be a lot more hopeful if Obama didn't pre-emptively rule out single-payer when he was doing his health policy vagueness thing, and present himself as a spectator on major issues of the day rather than an agent.

And what kind of progressive leader flies to Connecticut in April of 2006 to give a speech endorsing Joe Lieberman at the state convention? It was a moment in which the tether connecting Obama to conventional centrist opinion became visible.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 23, 2007 5:06:45 PM

I don't see any strong reason to think either Obama or Edwards will be able to make their ideas come about, in cases where it will be difficult. Neither should have any trouble getting through stuff enough Democrats are willing to do on their own. For stuff that requires crossing lines (immigration reform, for example), Obama has more experience working with both sides for liberal ends than Edwards has getting programs passed working only one side.

No one, including Edwards, is proposing instituting single-payer. Edwards has a good idea that could lead to that eventually if people choose it over time, and Obama hasn't ruled out giving people that option. We'll see when he gives his plan.

I suppose Obama likes Lieberman; that would be my inference from his endorsement. I don't see that as any more of a centrist tether than some of things Edwards did before he was running for President. As I said, none thrills me right now. But it's still so early; there's plenty of time.

Posted by: Sanpete | May 23, 2007 5:47:20 PM

See here for a list of Lieberman's primary race endorsements. Pretty interesting--don't miss the organizations.

Posted by: Sanpete | May 23, 2007 6:41:15 PM

Is there any good evidence that Edwards' underlying political commitments as opposed to his '08 election year positioning are to the left of Obama's? This is a serious question, not an attempt to be snide.

Sanpete already made most of the points in response to Neil's post that I was going to make - I just don't see much reason to think that Edwards is more progressive than Obama. Endorsing Lieberman is bad in my book. That is the only thing that Obama has done that I really don't like. I live in CT now and the guy is pretty intolerable.

On the other hand, my sense is that Obama has more experience working with Republicans to get things done and seems to have an unusual ability to pitch things to appeal to a broad audience without selling out. This is a lot more important for accomplishing stuff as President than staking out the most liberal positions in the primary. Especially if the Democrats don't get 60+ Senators which seems pretty unlikely even if '08 and '10 go fairly well (and it is unclear whether Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman count toward the 60) . . .

A lot of the game if the Dems win will be trying to move the national dialogue to the point where Republican moderates will feel uncomfortable opposing serious health care reform and the like. If the game plan is to wait until we have a 1965-type majority in congress, we could be waiting a long time.

Posted by: ikl | May 23, 2007 11:13:19 PM

We may not have a 1965-style majority, but we'll probably have a pretty big one. Given the Senate calendar, I'd estimate that we'll have 57 in the Senate come 2011. Nonpartisan analyst Stuart Rothenberg thinks 60 is within reach.

We need 50 affirmative votes to pass stuff, and 60 to sign a cloture petition. Don't worry about Ben and Joe on the latter count -- even if they vote against, I don't see them filibustering Democratic legislation. If we can pressure 3 Republicans into going for cloture, that'll probably be enough.

This is absolutely the wrong election to pick a guy who wants to do the bipartisan thing. And why think that Mitch McConnell will negotiate in good faith? I don't see the national dialogue shifting so fast in 4 years that the GOP will be willing to deal on health care. The majority of the party will fight it tooth and nail.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 23, 2007 11:46:23 PM

Neil,

We don't need a majority of Republicans, we need Spector, Collins (if she survives '08), Snowe, Smith (if he survives '08) and a few others. Doing deals with Mitch McConnell hopefullly won't be necessary. But I think that it is pretty naive to think that a Democratic president is just going to run through a bunch of great bills through congress without some serious negotiations with moderate Republicans and conservative Dems - a least in the Senate. Though it can be hard to forget after the past several years, we don't have a parliamentary system and this (bi-partisen dealmaking and compromise) is actually the way things have usually gotten done in the Senate. Fortunately, a skillful Dem president can probably peel off enough Republican votes on some issues - party unity gets a lot less appealing when your party keeps getting beaten at the polls.

I'm not sure about Joe. He is a snake, I think. Just look at him campaigning for Collins. He might defect on certain issues just to piss off Democrats. I don't know how he is on health care, but he is pretty tight with various corporate interests (you sort of have to be in CT, Dodd is too despite being a good Senator on the whole, I think).

In any case, I don't think that posturing on the left in the primary is really what to look for in a candidate. It's not clear whether this has much to do with how likely the candidate is to get good legislation enacted. All of our major candidates favor serious health care reform leading to universal coverage - HRC didn't fail in 1994 for want of trying. I like Edwards just fine and think that he might be able to represent the Dems pretty well as President (likable and a good communicator). And I don't really doubt that his heart is in the right place. But I just don't buy the idea that I'm supposed to support Edwards because other Democrats aren't really serious about health care and other economic issues. The most important question on domestic policy (other than who is the strongest general election candidate) is not who wants it the most, but who has the skill to get it done (and the policy instincts to do it right). I also think that foreign affairs are underrated as a voting issue, but that is another story.

Posted by: ikl | May 24, 2007 1:18:01 AM

Also, let's not count our chickens as far as Senate seats go. Other than maybe CO, I don't see a lot of easy wins out there. 57 seems pretty optimistic - though a lot depends on retirements.

Posted by: ikl | May 24, 2007 1:20:30 AM

But I just don't buy the idea that I'm supposed to support Edwards because other Democrats aren't really serious about health care and other economic issues.

Well, I'm not saying anything like that. I think Obama cares about health care and other economic issues, and even Clinton is going to offer incremental movement in the right direction. The question is, how big are they willing to play? Are they going to fight really hard to get the most progressive plan possible, possibly losing the love of the WaPo editorial page in the process, or are they going to settle for something much less significant that commands a supermajority? If you're going to try to get affirmative votes, and not just cloture votes, from even GOP moderates, you're going for a much less progressive proposal. If I'd seen Barack Obama take some important issue and use his stardom to build a movement behind it -- the way Al Gore did with global warming and John Edwards did with poverty -- I'd be a lot more optimistic that he had the kind of boldness it'd take to push the most progressive plan possible through Congress. As it stands, I think we'll get genuine and substantial improvements from him, but he won't push as hard as Edwards will.

As for the makeup of the Senate, I think we have a really good shot in New Hampshire, which kicked out both of its House Republicans last year. Norm Coleman, who won in '02 off of Wellstone funeral silliness, has never been a deeply loved Senator in MN. In North Carolina, Mike Easley is already beating Elizabeth Dole in some polls (Easley is reluctant to run, but even if he doesn't, the Democratic bench in the state is pretty deep and Dole's approval/disapproval is 36/36.) Competitiveness in a bunch of very red states depends on whether we can get popular statewide figures to run. OK loves its Democratic governor, and Mark Warner is currently unemployed in Virginia.

I'd be a lot less hopeful if we weren't coming off a spectacular 2006 performance. But in some ways (fundraising) we're looking to be even stronger than we were then.

By the way, my 57 prediction is for the 2011 Congress. I'm guessing we pick up something like 4 or 5 this time and 1 or 2 next cycle.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 24, 2007 9:02:26 AM

Well, Clinton tried to offer pretty big change in the right direction in '94. And s/he bungled it. Again, I just disagree that the relavant decision metric is who wants it badly. It's mostly about execution. So I think that you are pushing the wrong arguemnt for Edwards - Edwards unike Clinton doesn't have sky high unfavorables and could come into office with broad enough popularity to give him some freedom of movement. He also seems to appeal to the center, though it is yet to be seen whether this quality survives his repositioning for the '08 primary. Of course, all of this describes Obama pretty well as well. By the time it comes down to CT, I expect to be voting for whoever is left standing against Clinton.

I agree that there are at least 5 or 6 Republican Senate seats that look like they are in trouble next year. But beating incombents is hard. Even in a favorable year like '06, the Dems needed to get a bit lukcy to have all of the close races break their way on election day (only TN went R, but that wasn't supposed to be as close as it was). So I wouldn't count on that again. Though I wouldn't count it out either. A lot depends on what sort of candidates the Dems can get. So far, other than, CO, things don't seem that exciting on that front.

We'll see about Obama's policy proposals. They are still in the works. But I'd be pretty surprised if he were right of center in Democratic terms. He also doesn't seem to have the desparate-for-you-to-like-me quality that lead Bill Clinton too much to the right at times.

Posted by: ikl | May 24, 2007 11:12:28 AM

If I'd seen Barack Obama take some important issue and use his stardom to build a movement behind it -- the way Al Gore did with global warming and John Edwards did with poverty

I understand the reference to Gore. The rest I don't understand. Obama has probably done more to fight poverty than Edwards, whose "movement" on this is still rather green. I see no reason at all to think Obama would push less hard than Edwards on this. Obama was know for pushing very hard, and effectively, back home.

Posted by: Sanpete | May 24, 2007 12:09:13 PM

Yeah, what Sanpete said.

Also, I tend to trust someone how has been working on poverty issues (and other matters of public policy) for most of his adult life to have more sound policy instincts here than someone who was a trial lawyer for most of his career. Not that Edwards will do a bad job if he surrounds himself with good policy people. But I think that you've got to agree that Obama has a better background here.

I'm not sure if you realize how remarkable it is for someone with a political background in the black community of the South Side of Chicago to be a serious candidate for President - one who has the ability to appeal to the center of the political spectrum. If you're interested in poverty issues, this is nothing to scoff at. I can't think of anything else who fits anything like this profile in the recent past (no, Jesse Jackson doesn't count as serious in the sense of could be elected; LBJ didn't show that much concern for poor folks until he got elected; Al Smith had a background in urban working class politics, but that was 1928!).

Posted by: ikl | May 24, 2007 12:29:57 PM

I wouldn't consider that an entirely accurate description of his political background. He did spend a few years as a community organizer, but it's not like he grew up in Chicago living in poverty and participating in movements for economic justice. He only got there when he was 24, and he was doing plenty of other things during that time, including going to law school, working for law firms (good ones involved with various liberal causes), and being a lecturer in constitutional law. I'm glad that he did all that, but if the idea is supposed to be that this is the millieu in which he had his formative political experiences, or that his political rise began in the ranks of Chicago community organizers, or that he grew up in poverty, that's a distorted picture of the situation.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 24, 2007 1:49:35 PM

No, it's just how he got his start in politics and the community that he represented for eight years or so in the IL state Senate. I don't really care where he was born or where he grew up - if you want evidence of someone's political commitments, you want to look at stuff that they had some control over. Going to work on the South Side was pretty much the first thing that he did after college and then he went back there after law school. You still haven't named another serious contender since 1928 who got their start representing this sort of constituency.

Posted by: ikl | May 24, 2007 2:23:04 PM

I should qualify the statement about childhood by saying that I think living abroad and particularly in a third world Muslim country is a plus for a candidate. Especially for one with a pretty thin resume on foreign affairs. But obviously this is way, way down the list of priorities. And without knowing him personally, it is hard to say exactly what he got out of the experience. I mean Romney lived in France for a while when he was much older and still says perfectly wacky things about the place . . .

Posted by: ikl | May 24, 2007 2:32:16 PM

You still haven't named another serious contender since 1928 who got their start representing this sort of constituency.

And I don't really feel a need to, because I don't think this is as significant as you make it out to be. Edwards' willingness to address these issues on the national stage with clearly defined progressive commitments strikes me as a more significant sign of what he'll do in office than where Obama got his political start, or the circumstances of either candidate's childhood.

I mean Romney lived in France for a while when he was much older and still says perfectly wacky things about the place

You're not kidding! That 7-year marriage thing was crazy.

I do think Obama's Muslim-country background is a plus, especially as it'll help him calm down leaders of Islamic countries in foreign affairs.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 24, 2007 2:51:24 PM

I'm really trying to root for Mitt in the GOP primary because he seems best in terms of likely performance as President + likelihood of losing the in the general election, but he is running such an offensive campaign that it's really hard. McCain is more appealing as Presidential material except for his militarism which is scary and his age which compounds the scariness of his militarism. Also he is more likely to win in the general election (this is not saying much - Romney might actually make us competitive in parts of the South let alone more conservative parts of the midwest and non-Mormon parts of the West).

Posted by: ikl | May 24, 2007 3:18:32 PM

I mostly agree about Mitt, though he's such a bag of weirdness that I'm not as confident in my ability to predict his electoral fate as I'd otherwise be. I do think he'd be the least bad president, because he bends easily to political realities.

I'm no McCain fan, because he's actually a pretty orthodox conservative when you look at his voting record. Sure, he's good on global warming and torture, but the militarism and the fact that he's never cast a pro-choice vote in his life scare me.

The guy I'm interested in helping out however I can is Gingrich, because there's absolutely no way he wins a general election. I liked the SurveyUSA poll where Edwards swept him 538-0 in the electoral college. And I think he could get the nomination, if Fred Thompson flops and the base isn't excited with any of the other candidates.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 24, 2007 4:01:26 PM

Yeah, I think was openly cheering for Newt on another thread. But I have a hard time seeing it. You have to figure that Republican power brokers would work to prevent this.

Mitt has a genuinely impressive resume. And he is articulate and Presidential looking. So he has the makings of a strong candidacy. However, I think that his transparent pandering will hurt him. His Mormanism probably will too (not that this is really fair - though given his constant dissing of MA where people really didn't care about his religion and his appeals to bigotry on the right, perhaps he deserves it). And he should be fairly easy to paint as a representative of East Coast corporate interests. In short, I don't see this guy being a very strong candidate in Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin or New Mexico. He might be strong in New Hampshire though.

Environmental issues are a pretty big deal for me, so I find McCain appealing for this reason. Just having both major candidates advocating for controling global warming could be useful in changing the political dynamics of this issue in and of itself. And I would much prefer fairly orthodox conservativism to what we have had for the last 6 years. But his uber-hawkishness is really worrisome.

Thompson seems like a pretty reasonable generic Republican candidate without a lot of harmful baggage. But in a year like '08 should he should be very beatable.

Posted by: ikl | May 24, 2007 5:42:17 PM

托盘
 托盘
 钢托盘
 钢制托盘
 塑料托盘
 木托盘
 木制托盘
 纸托盘
 木塑托盘